Brighton & Hove City Council
Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)
10.00am 27 April 2023
Virtual
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillor ; John, Simson and Fowler
|
|
Officers:
|
PART ONE
1 To appoint a Chair for the Meeting
PART ONE
1 To appoint a Chair for the Meeting
1.1 Councillor Simson was appointed Chair for the meeting.
2 Procedural Business
Xa Declaration of Substitutes
2 Procedural Business
2a Declaration of Substitutes
2.1 Councillor Fowler substituted for Councillor Henry.
2b Declarations of Interest
2.2 There were none.
2c Exclusion of the Press and Public
2.3 In accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (‘the Act’), the Licensing Panel considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during an item of business on the grounds that it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press or public were present during that item, there would be disclosure to them of confidential information (as defined in section 100A(3) of the Act) or exempt information (as defined in section 100I of the Act).
2.4 RESOLVED: That the press and public were not excluded from the meeting.
3 Antidote Bar Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)
3 Antidote Bar Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)
In attendance
For the premises James Dyson (PLH)
James Rankin (Barrister)
Doug Simmonds (Proposed Independent Auditor)
Review applicant Mark Thorogood (Sussex Police)
Peter Savill (Barrister)
Making representation Donna Lynsdale (Licensing Authority Officer)
Licensing Officer Presentation
3.1 The Licensing Officer summarised the background of the hearing, which originally convened on 6th February 2023 to allow the Licensing Authority to determine a review application submitted by Sussex Police in regard to the premises licence issued for Antidote Bar, 5-6 Western Road, Hove BN3 1AE. Subsequently, they outlined the contents of the review application which cited grounds relating to the licensing objectives for the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, particularly continual high drug readings and lack of confidence in management. They advised that one representation had been received in support of the review application, which was submitted by the Licensing Team.
The Licensing Officer stated that following the Panel’s decision to adjourn the hearing on 6th February 2023 to enable the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) to seek legal advice, the premises had remained closed while extensive discussions were held between the PLH, their legal representation, Sussex Police and the Licensing Authority Officer. The Licensing Officer confirmed that a new proposal had been agreed by the PLH and Sussex Police, which was circulated to the Panel, and highlighted that the recent proposal from Sussex Police recommended a yellow card was issued.
The Licensing Officer concluded by outlining the licensing guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the steps the Licensing Authority could take to promote the licensing objectives under Section 52 of the Licensing Act in relation to the review application. Beyond this, they underpinned the guidance set out in the Council’s Licensing Enforcement Policy, particularly with regards to the issuing of red and yellow cards for problem premises, the steps to be taken in first and second intervention measures and possible tough conditions.
Sussex Police Statement
3.2 Mr Savill and Mr Thorogood echoed the Licensing Officer’s statement and outlined the reasoning for the review application, the details of the premises’ proposal, revised conditions and the work that had since been undertaken. Further, they highlighted that Sussex Police invited the Panel to issue a yellow card and agreed that this form of license would promote the licensing objectives if imposed. Beyond this, they advised that the main aim was to reduce drug use on the premises and they were putting a lot of faith in the new management at the premises, however, if there were subsequent high readings of drugs, they would call for another review.
3.3 Cllr Simson raised questions regarding security arrangements at the premises and the implications for the police should a yellow card be issued.
Representations
3.3 The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the representation was made given the Licensing Team’s concerns that the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance were not being upheld. They advised that the history of the matter was explained in more detail in the application of Sussex Police, and at the hearing held on 6 February, following which conversations had been held with the PLH and their legal representative. The Licensing Officer confirmed that as a result of these conversations, Sussex Police and the Licensing Team were happy to allow the premises, in conjunction with the revised premises licence times and conditions, a further chance to operate, with the agreement of the Licensing Panel. However, they asked that a Yellow Card was also issued and advised that if further issues were found at the venue, and another Review hearing was called, the venue would be at the risk of the premises licence being revoked. The Licensing Officer therefore asked the Licensing Panel to consider the agreed proposed times and conditions.
Premises License Holder Statement
3.4 Mr Rankin summarised the background of the management of the premises and the history of drugs visits. He advised that Mr Dyson was notified of the review application in January 2023 and subsequently moved his residency back to the UK, issued foreclosure proceedings on the previous licence holder and DPS and closed the premises from 9th January. Mr Rankin added that an examination had been undertaken to determine who should run the premises, following which Mr Doukakis had been identified given his experience. Beyond this, Mr Rankin highlighted that a list of conditions was compiled which offered a middle ground between the initial review and the sensible and proportionate outcome.
3.5 Mr Dyson added that the premises committed to having Security Industry Authority registered staff on the door but further details were still to be confirmed as the reopening of the premises was still some way off.
3.6 Mr Rankin continued to outline the plan for the reopening of the premises and advised that Mr Simmonds would be the person auditing the premises as per condition 6.
3.7 Cllr John raised a question regarding the timeline for reopening and commended Mr Dyson for listening to the Panel in the previous hearing and taking what was requested of them very seriously.
3.8 Cllr Fowler raised questions regarding the renaming of the premises and staffing.
3.9 Cllr Simson raised a question regarding the day-to-day running of the premises.
Licensing Officer Closing Observations
3.10 The Licensing Officer provided a summary in which they stated that the hearing was arranged so that the Licensing Authority could determine an application for a Review of a Premises Licence submitted by Sussex Police in respect of the premises licence issued for Antidote. Further, they summarised the proposed conditions including the proposal of a reduction in opening licensable activities times and a number of additional conditions including substantial food being made available, the basement being used for pre-booked events only, increased security and the Mobile Support Unit.
Beyond this, the Licensing Officer outlined the steps that could be taken under Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003, where the licensing authority considers that action in relation to the review application is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. They also highlighted the guidance for deciding which of these powers to invoke and underpinned the expectation of the licensing authority to seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the representations identify and the remedial action that should be taken.
Further, the Licensing Officer stated that licensing authorities should note that modifications of conditions and exclusions of licensable activities may be imposed either permanently or for a temporary period of up to three months. Though, temporary changes or suspension of the licence for up to three months could impact on the business holding the licence financially and would only be expected to be pursued as an appropriate means of promoting the licensing objectives. However, they also highlighted the importance that any detrimental financial impact that may result from a licensing authority’s decision is appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Finally, they stated that where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence.
Premises License Holder Closing Statement
3.11 Both Mr Rankin and Mr Dyson reiterated their thanks to Mr Thorogood, the Licensing Authority Officer and the Licensing Officer for taking a pragmatic and proportionate response and for their engagement throughout the process.
Decision
3.12 The panel considered the application for review contained within the report along with representation and statement from the new licence holder and further supplementary papers submitted prior to the hearing. The panel listened carefully to all the submissions made at the hearing and had regard to the S182 Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
The review was applied for by Sussex Police and brought on the basis of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing objective due to high drugs readings in the premises over a significant period of time. The police originally called for revocation of the licence due to the seriousness of the issues involved. A Representation supporting the review was made by the Licensing Authority.
The panel was originally convened on the 6th February 2023. The hearing was adjourned so that the owner and new premises licence holder could seek legal advice and to enable discussions to take place between the parties. The premises has been closed since the 9th January 2023.
The owner of the premises James Dyson was present and represented by his barrister James Rankin. Mark Thorogood from the police was present represented by their barrister Peter Savill. Donna Lynsdale was present for the licensing authority. Since the adjournment the parties entered into extensive negotiations and an agreed proposal was put forward to the panel for their consideration and approval.
The main features of the proposal were reduced hours of operation, substantial food on the ground floor and use of the basement for pre-booked events only. Robust anti-drugs conditions including training were included, and measures to control noise at the premises. There was also a requirement for employment of an independent auditor to make unannounced visits to the premises to assess compliance with conditions. The proposed auditor Doug Simmonds, an experienced licensing consultant, was also present at the hearing to answer any questions.
The police stressed that they were putting their faith in the new management of the premises to remove the drugs association with the premises and believed that the proposal would promote the licensing objectives. They wished the panel to issue a clear warning to mark the seriousness of the problems identified by the review.
On behalf of the owner and new premises licence holder it was stressed how seriously he had taken the issues once aware of the review and the urgent action he had taken to remove the previous licence holder and DPS. He had worked hard to address the issues involved and was committed to ensuring the premises would be run in a responsible manner with a new management team and experienced DPS.
The panel must take such statutory steps under the Licensing Act 2003 in response to the review as are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The panel also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and enforcement approach and the S182 Statutory Guidance in relation to reviews and reviews arising in connection with crime.
The panel recognised the hard work put in by the parties to negotiate an agreed response to this review in the form of the proposal before them. The panel considered that the proposal, which was attached to the decision, in the form of modified conditions and operating hours was an appropriate and proportionate response to this review and would promote the licensing objectives. The panel thus endorsed this proposal and thanked all the parties for their considerable efforts in this respect.
Finally, but importantly, the panel was mindful of the seriousness of the issues which led to this review and the need to ensure there was no reoccurrence. This was a first intervention and so the panel also issued a clear warning or ‘yellow card’. Should a further review on the same issues come before them the consequences would be extremely serious and would give rise to a presumption of revocation of the licence.
The meeting concluded at 10.32am
The meeting concluded at 10.32am
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|